
Book AZ£/ 



DEFENCE 



RICHARD W. MEADE 



BEFORE THE 



COUET OF INQUIEY, 

CONVENED AT WASHINGTON CITY, 



IN PUESUANCK OF 



THE ACT OF CONGRESS ENTITLED "AN ACT TO AMEND AN ACT ENTITI.EU AN 

ACT TO PROMOTE THE EFFICIEVCY OF THE NAVY," 

APPROVED JANUARY 16, 1857. 



Presented and read Marcli 30, 1857. 



WASHINGTON 

1857. 



DEFENCE. 



Mr. Fi'esident and Gentlemen of the Court : 

I entered the navy as a midsliipman in 1826. On the 20th Octo- 
ber, 1837, I was commissioned by the President of the United States, 
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a lieutenant in the 
navy. While "iibsent from the country, without any notification what- 
ever, I was dropped from the service by the action of the late naval 
board. The injustice of such a procedure I need not comment on. 
The public opinion of the country has been expressed so strongly, 
there is but little apprehension that such a procedure can ever again 
be repeated. The legislature of the nation, responding to the appeal 
of those who suffered from this tyrannous proceeding, has refused to 
regard its judgments as binding, and, by the act approved 16th Jan- 
uary, 1857, provided for the organization of a court of inquiry, by 
which the Secretary of the Navy was directed -to investigate the 
physical, mental, professional, and moral fi.tnes8 for the naval service 
of such officers who should appeal from the action of the late naval 
board. 

Under the act last quoted I claim now to be an officer in the navy 
with a judgment of dismissal against me, which judgment is sus- 
pended by the operation of the act, and awaits your action. You are 
to investigate my fitness for the service. If you find, from the facts 
produced in evidence, that I am so deficient in either of the qualifica- 
tions mentioned in the act as to justify my dismissal from the service, 
then the former judgment stands. If, on the contrary, the facts do 
not, in your judgment, justify it, then the former judgment is a mere 
nullity, and my rank and pay continue as if that judgment had never 
existed. 

These remarks show that I am not to be regarded as a volunteer or as 
one applying to be admitted into the navy, but as an officer of the navy, 
complaining of an arbitrary and unjust dismissal from the service by 
a board, whose judgment Congress has expressly refused to consider as 
final. 

I therefore respectfully submit, that the duty of this court is to de- 
cide from the facts, not whetlier the character of the applicant is such 
that they would select him for the service, but whether it is such, that, 
being in the service, they would turn him out. 

An officer deprived of reputation and the meaqs of livelihood by the 
action of the late naval board, is invited by Congress to seek redress 
before this court. Could there be a stronger case of adding insult to 
injury, than to treat such a one as a mere stranger ajjplying for ad- 
mission into the service? 

Such being, in my view, my rights under the act, when I aj)2)eared 



3 

before the court, I was entitled to have the grounds stated upon whicli 
the investigation was to be conducted. This was not done. The evi- 
dence shows that the means of doing it were in the possession of the 
Secretary of the Navy, upon whom, under the act, was imposed the 
duty of causing to be investigated my fitness. The failure to do this 
places the applicant under the most unfavorable circumstances. 
Against this mode of proceeding I am advised by my counsel to pro- 
test. 

I now enter upon an examination of the evidence to which the court 
has so patiently listened, and for which I return my sincere thanks. 
It is very voluminous, and much of it unessential, and never would 
have occupied the time of the court, if any point had been given to the 
examination by the adoption of the course which I have already sub- 
mitted the government was bound to adopt. 

To show that my unfitness for the service was such that the judg- 
ment of dismissal against me should stand, evidence has been produced, 
■which may all be resolved into three heads. 

1st. General reputation in the navy. 

2d. Opinions of officers who have served with me as to my fitness. 

3d. Facts showing me unfit under the several heads named in the 
act. 

GENERAL REPUTATION. 

In reference to the first head — general reputation — I am at a loss to 
understand how this court of inquiry which, by the act constituting 
it, is directed to be " governed by the laws and regulations which 
now govern courts of inquiry," can have its judgment in the pre- 
mises afft'cted by such evidence. The rules of evidence in courts of 
inquiry are the same as those which govern courts-martial, and, 
openino: the first treaties upon courts-martial at hand, I find it stated 
by De Hart, page 334 : "As the rules which govern courts-martial 
are the same as those obtaining in the criminal courts of the land, ifc 
is of essential importance that military men should well understand 
the general principle of the law of evidence." 

If I v/ere now on trial on the charge of professional unfitness before 
a court-martial, can there be any doubt that the charge of unfitness 
would have to be supported by the evidence of. /acfs.^ If the facts 
produced in evidence showed me to be unfit, would the court permit 
general reputation to be given to contradict them, and show me to be 
fit? Most certainly not; and, as general reputation could not, under 
such circumstances, be used as a shield for defence, it surely cannot be 
used as a sword of attack. 

The same observations are equally applicable to each of the other 
heads of inquiry; they are each substantive facts, capable of being 
established by the ordinary rules of evidence. If a man be either 
mentally, morally, professionally, or physically unfit to such an extent 
as to justify his dismissal from the service, his unfitness must liave 
evidenced itself by some acts of omission or commission; and then 
are so susceptible of direct and positive evidence, as to afford no ground 
for a resort to reputation. I am, therefore, advised by counsel to ob- 



ject to all siicli evidence as illegal, and to protest against its use as 
affecting tlie judgment of the court. 

I come now to examine what has been stated by the witnesses on 
thisliead, under the general inquiry as submitted in the formula of 
the judge advocate, which includes all the grounds mentioned in the 
act. It is as follows : 

Captain Mercer. — "As to his mental capacity, Iiis general reputation is, that he possessed a 
rather irregular mind, and a temper not under control, which seemed to lead him to commit 
acts of insubordination. As to his moral character, knows nothing against his reputation. 
His reputation for professional fitness is marred by this turbulent spirit and insubordinate 
disposition." 

Lieutenant Johnston. — "As regards his professional skill, I don't know I ever heard it 
spoken of. His moral character I never heard impeached. He has a general reputation 
for getting into difficulties with officers, but not on the score of insubordination. So far 
as I know, his difficulties were as apt to be with his inferiors as with his superiors." 

Commander Ckatard. — "The general reputation he has acquired is one of great enthusi- 
asm ; very ardent and very thorough in whatever he undertook, great bitterness towards 
his enemies, and great warmth for his friends. Does not think such a character unfitted 
him for his position." 

lAeutenant North. — -"His reputation was that of an officer of good mind, but insubor- 
dinate and quarrelsome." 

Lieutenant Wainicright. — "His general reputation is, that he is impetuous and quarrelsome. 
Never heard anything against his morality. His professional reputation is certainly not 
of a high order." 

Lieutenant Le Em/. — "He has the reputation of being impetuous and impulsive. Never 
heard his moral character impeached. Does not know what his professional reputation is." 

Lieutenant Crossan. — " His general reputation is not favorable." 

Oommodore Jones — " His general reputation in the navy is so contradictory, I cannot un- 
dertake to say what it is." 

Captain Buchanan. — "His general reputation was very bad — his mental, moral, and pro- 
fessional character included." 

These are all the witnesses who testified as to reputation. The 
same formula was also submitted to the following witnesses : 

Commander Ridgely. — "I do not know he had any general reputation in the navy." 

Commodore 3IcCaulcy, (a member of the board of fifteen.) — " Do not know he has any gen- 
eral reputation." 

Lieutenant Frailey. — " Would not say he had a general reputation. Have heard many 
officers speak againt-t him, and many in his favor." 

Commotfore J[w^/c/f. — " Has no knowledge of his general reputation. Has heard rumors 
which he does not regard as knowledge." 

Of all the witnesses who have been examined in this case, the for- 
mula was submitted to but thirteen of the number. Why the same 
question was not submitted to all of them, or on what principle the 
selection was made by the judge advocate, I do not know. Of the 
thirteen who were asked the question, eight testified I had a general 
reputation, and five that I had no general reputation to their knowl- 
edge. 

I presume I am authorized to say that my physical fitness is not 
questioned, as there is not a particle of evidence to invalidate it; and 
regarding mental and professional fitnes as one and the same thing, 
there remain two heads of inquiry to which to apply the rule of repu- 
tation : 

Ist. Moral fitness. 

2d. Professional fitness. 

On the first head — 

Captain Mercer says : "I know of nothing to impeach his moral character." 
Lieutenant Johnston. — " His moral character I never heard impeached." ' 



Commander Chalard SY>eA\i^ of my enthusiasm of disposition; of my bitterness towards 
enemies, and my warmtli for my friends. And adds, that, in his opinion, this was no dis- 
qualification for an officer. 

Lieutenant WainwrigM says : " I never heard anything against his morality." 
Lieutenant LcRinj sa,ys : "I never heard his moral character impeached." 
Captain Buchanan says my general reputation is venj bad, in which he includes my moral 
character. 

Of these six witnesses who speak of my general reputation as to 
morals, tive of them never heard my moral character impeached, and 
but one testifies that my general reputation in that respect was bad ; 
to use his own language, ''very had." 

This witness is Captain Buchanan, a member of the late Naval Board, 
whose judgment in dropping me was most probably based upon his 
representations. I leave this head of inquiry with but a single re- 
mark, that the statement thus presented contains its own severest 
commentary. 

Applying the evidence of these witnesses to the second head, viz: 
my reputation as to professional fitness — 

1. Captain Mercer says : It was marred by my " turbulent spirit and insubordinate dispo- 
sition." 

2. Lieutenant North. — "His reputation was that of an olficer of good mind, but insubor- 
dinate .and quarrelsome." 

3. Lieutenant Wainwright. — " His professional reputation is certainly not of a high order." 

4. Lieutenant Crossan. — "His general reputation is not favorable." 

5. Captain Buchanan. — " His professional reputation was very had." 

.These five witnesses are the only ones who speak of my professional 
reputation. The two first state the defect to be, a quarrelsome and 
insubordinate spirit. The third, " that it was not of a high order." 
The fourth, that my general reputation was not favorable; but spe- 
cifies no particular qualities in which it was deficient. The fifth says 
it was ''very had." This fifth witness is Captain Buchanan, a mem- 
ber of the late Naval Board. 

The court will thus perceive, that but a single witness of all those 
the judge advocate has chosen to interrogate upon this point speaks of 
my professional reputation as bad. The inquiry was as to general 
reputation; and though the character of the inquiry was explained, 
yet, from the very nature of the subject, it must be doubtful whether 
the witnesses fully understood the distinction between general reputa- 
tion and impressions made upon their minds by conversations with 
particular officers. If I had a general reputation for professional un- 
fitness — that is, a well-established character for unfitness — surely 
more than one of the whole number of witnesses examined could have 
been brought to say that it was bad. The failure in this particular 
leaves but one inference, and that is, while I may have been spoken of 
disparagingly by some officers so to justify the impression made on 
the mind of Captain Buchanan, they were officers whom it has been 
my misfortune to make enemies of. If I had a general reputation, it 
would have been generally known, and could have been generally tes- 
tified to by the witnesses. 

I conclude, therclbre, this first division, into which I have divided 
the evidence, by the observation, that reputation is not legal evidence; 
and if it wpje, there is a most signal failure to show either that it was 



6 

such to justify my dismissal from the service, or to prevent my ad- 
mission into it. 

OPINIONS OF THE OFFICERS. 

The second division of the evidence comes now to be considered ; 
that is, the opinions and judgment of officers who have served with me. 

The first cruise testified to was in the Brand.ywine, in the years 
1826-'27, '28, and 29, under Commodore Jacob Jones. I served on 
board that vessel about six months, and then joined the Dolphin, 
Lieutenant Commanding Aulick. Having served on board of her 
six or seven months, I joined the Vincennes, Caplain Finch, after- 
wards Bolton. I remained on board of her for the cruise ; when the 
Brandywine being relieved, I was ordered home in her, and arrived 
in the latter part of 1829. The officers who served with me during 
these years testif}^ as follows : 

Captain Cunningham. — "Was a lieutenant on board of the Brandywine, at intervals be- 
tween 182G and 1829, and was also liuitenant on board of the Vincennes part of her 
cruise. Mr. Meade was on board of both ships. I remember him as a good watchman, 
at all times obedient to orders, and zealous in the discharge of his duties." 

To avoid again referring to the evidence of this witness, though out of the chronological 
order in which I propose to examine this division of the subject, I refer to his statement 
of my conduct and capacity in 1853-'54. Ihe witness says, "I was executive officer of 
the navy yard at Norfolk when he reported as commander of the Massachusetts. Mr. 
Meade, in the discharge of his official duties, was respectful, courteous, and subordinate, 
and in every tvaij qualified to command his ship. " His never seen 77iore zeal and a7meti/ mauifested 
by any officer than Mr. Meade manifested in the preparation of his ship. 

Lieutenant Wdliam Chandler. — "We were together on board the Brandywine a portion of 
our cruise in the Bacific, between 1826 and '29 ; again, in 1830 and '31, in the same ship 
in the Mediterranean. In 1832 we came home together in the Ontario. He discharged 
his duty as midshipman very efficiently and intelligently." 

In answer to the general interrogatory, he says: "'Mentally, morally, and physicaFsy, I 
can answer in the afhrmative. As to his professional fitness for the office he lield in 1855, 
I am unable to say, as we have not served together since. From his general intelligence 
and acquirements, and the experience he must have had from so long a service, I should 
Bay he was fit." 

Lieutenant M. F. Maury.— "Served together in the Brandywine in lS2C-'27 ; and again 
in the Vincennes in 1827-'28. Mr. Meade was tmexceptionahlc as an officer, and in his private 
deportment knows of no act that evinced a spirit of insubordination. Has had no op- 
portunity to judge of Ins fitness since that time. 

The next cruise testified to wai that in the St. Louis, Capts. Newell 
and McCauley. The witnesses are as follows : 

Captain Ncicell commanded the St. Louis in lS33-'34. At one time Mr. Meade was with 
him about four months as midshipman ; he was afterwards reattached to the ship, and 
served the balance of tlie cruise. As an officer he performed his duty on board to my 
eatisfaction. I had no complaint to make of him. Never witnessed any act tending to 
insubordination, and knows nothing to the contrary of his being morally and professionally 
qualified for the oflice he held in the navy in 1855. 

Commodore McCauley, a member of the board— "Mr. Meade served under my command in 
the sloop-of-war St. Louis, in the West Indies, duiing the years 1834-'35. While under 
my command he was perfectly r&pectful and suhm-dinate. I dont think I had ever occasion to find 
fault with him. I think 1 gave him a letter approving his conduct." Knows nothing 
professionallj' of him since. 

Captain Merrer. — "Ue first sailed with me in the St. Louis in 1833 ; afterwards he sailed 
with me in 1834-'35." The witness also testifies that he saw me at llio for 8 or 9 days, 
when witness was in command of the Savannah, and I commanded the Mas.=:achusetts.' 
Further, he says : "I have no personal hwwlcd'je of any act of insubordination. He was 
very attentive to his duty. While on board of tlie St. Louis there were great difficulties 
between Captain Newell and his officers, which' resulted in a court-martial ; Mr. Meade's 
conduct throughout was i)erfectly coriect ; he was not at all involved in those difficulties. 



Lieutenant Johnston. — Served with him in 1834.-'35. Knows of no act of insubordination, 
or anything to show his unfitness for his htation. 

My next service was in tiie Experiment in 1835. Lieutenant Porter testifies: "While 
on hoard the Experiment Mr. Meade discharged his duties as well as any officer on board 
of her." He then refers to the loss of her rudder, otf Little Egg harbor, during a heavy 
blow, in which he states my etliciency. Knows of no act tending to insubordination, and 
thinks "he (Meade) was mentally, morally, and physically tit for the office he held in 
1855." 

In 1810-'41 I served on the Falt.n about sixteen months. The witnesses are as fol- 
lows : 

Covmander Chatard testifies : "I served Avith Mr. Meade i\\ the steamer Fulton. Meade 
was a watch othcer as a lieutenant ; he discharged his duties very well indeed ; his con- 
duct always proper and gentlemanly ; never witnessed any act of insubordination. When 
on duty I thought him tit for the otlice he then held, and I know of no fact since to im- 
pair that opinion." 

Cbwwftoftoe iV^cifton commanded the Fulton in '40-'41. "While under my command in 
'40-'41, his conduct was entirely correct and met with my approbation, both as an officer 
and a gentleman. I never have had occasion to change my opinion then formed. 

Lieutenant Sta7deij. — "Served with him in the Fulton in 1840, 1841 ; has known him off 
and on in various places, and lately while I was attached to the navy yard in California. 
He discharged his duties as an ofticer with the greatest propriety. Thinks he is highly 
qualified in every particular." 

My next tour of servive was in the navy yard at Washington, in 
1842, as to which — 

Commander Boutwell testifies as follows : "He served with me about ten months at the 
Washington navy yard. He discharged his duties very well. His deportment was that of 
a gentleman, and never heard any complaint of him ; never witnes.sed any act of insubordi- 
nation. Knows nothing to the contrary of his fitness." 

I then served aboard the Erie, Lieutenants Commanding Manning 
and Duke, from December 18, 1842, to February 24, 1844. The only 
witness who testifies is — 

Lieutenant LeRor/, who says : " I served with him a few months aboard the Erie. From 
my own experience I found him to be a zealous and attentive officer." The witness is mis- 
taken in tlie period of our joint service, for the records of the department will show we 
served together on that vessel from December, 1842, to January, 1844. 

I was detached from the Erie by Commodore Dallas as bearer of 
despatches, and subsequently ordered to the Vincennes, which I joined 
April 2, 1844, and was detached August 7, 1844, being on board of 
her four montlis and five days. 

As to this tour of service, the witnesses testify as follows : 

Captain Franldin Buchanan. — "He served with me on board of the Vincennes part of 
1844. He was disposed to be insubordinate and quarrelsome. I considered him a very 
inefficient officer." 

Lieutenant Waimcright. — "I served with Mr. Meade on board of the Vincennes in 1844 — 
imder a year ; we were both lieuttnants. I know nothing against the discharge of his duties 
properly as an oJJIcer ; as far as came under my observation his conduct as a man was cor- 
rect." 

Charles Gray, late passed midshipman. — " Was associated with Mr. Meade on duty on 
board the Vincennes about six months ; was master's mate of his watch. In the dis- 
charge of his duty as lieutenant and deck -officer, he manifested a knowledge of his pro- 
fession. His manner of doing his duty was always proper. Always considered the ship 
safe when under liis charge, and never knew of an act of insubordination." 

In 1847 I joined the Potomac, Captain Aulick. The officers who 
served with me, and now testify, are as follows : 

Commodore John II. Aulick. — " He served under me, in the Potomao, some six mouths as 
a deck officer. As such he did not always meet my approbation. He did not always 
execute my ordeis as I gave tliem to him. It may have been from not understanding 
me. Don't recollect any act of insubordination. I know nothing of his fitness except 
as deck officer. T do not speak positively of his fitness." 



8 

Lieutenant North. — " I served with him on board of the Potomac ; we were both lieuten- 
ants. He discharged his duty for the little time he was on duty very well. His conduct 
as a man was very good as far as I know. Knows of no act of insubordination." 

A. D. Ilarrell, late lieutenant. — "Served with him on the Potomac in 1847. I was 
master and lieutenant, always doing the duty of master. As far as C9,me under my ob- 
servation he discharged his duty as lieutenant efficiently. His conduct as a gentleman 
was irreproachable." 

Lieutenant Frailey. — ' ' Served with him in 1847 on board of the Potomac ; tliinks Mr. Meade 
joined immediately after the fixU of Vera Cruz. Knows of no act of insubordination or 
tendency to insubordination. So far as liis conduct came under my observation, I should 
say he was morally, mentally, and professionally fit for the service." 

In 1853 I took command of the steamer Massachusetts, and during that cruise, in the 
fulfilment of my duties as commander, I was compelled to suspend Lieutenant Burnet, 
the executive officer of the ship ; of course this led to great exacerbation of feeling, and 
to the presentation of charges, on his part, which I will have occasion to refer to on 
another occasion. In answer to the general interrogatory, he says: "Mr. Meade was 
morally and professionally unfit for the service." 

Lieutenant Crossan, the only other officer examined, who served under me, on board of the 
Massachusetts, at first lieutenant, says : "I served with him three months. He was pro- 
fessionally and personally qualified fur his position." 

This completes the catalogue of opinions of the officers who were on 
duty with me from the beginning to the end of my professional career. 

There were other occasions, however, in which the manner I dis- 
charged my duties enabled officers and others to form opinions as to 
my fitness. The first of these was when, in command of the Massa- 
chusetts, I was fitting her for service, at the navy yard at Norfolk. 
The witnesses are as follows : 

Surgeon Williamsm. — While at the Portsmouth station "his moral and mental fitness 
was equal to that of any officer who came under his observation, and his professional char- 
acter was quite equal to that of any officer." 

Naval Constructm- Ilartt "saw him in command from May until he sailed. He was zealous 
as any officer he had ever seen." 

Naval (hnstructor Delano " was brought in connexion with him from Jidy, 1853, to May, 
1854." " He discharged his duties with fidelity, zeal, and judgment, and was very active." 

Captain R. B. Cunningham. — I refer to the evidence quoted under the first division of the 
evidence. (See p. 6.) 

The second occasion relates to my cruise while in the command of 
the Massachusetts. The officers who were brought in contact with 
me during that period testify as follows : 

Captain William F. Lynch ' ' had official communication with him while at Pvio nearly 
eoery day during his stay there. His conduct was creditable to him. Judging from all I 
saw, I thought him fit for the position he held." 

Commander Slerreit '■'■met \i\ih.\i.\m at Rio, Valparaiso, and San Francisco. I had ^ar- 
<traZ«r opportunity of judging of his y/7«css. In all respects he was fit for his office. In 
towing me out of the ' Straits of Magellan,' he exhibited great perseverance and zeal, or he 
never would have .'succeeded, his ship having but little power." 

Commander llidgeley " met with him at Pvio. His conduct was always that of a gentle- 
manly officer. So far as his observation extended, he commanded the Massachusetts very 
creditably, and exhibited no want of professional skill, ability, or fitness for the navy. He 
was under his observation about three weeks." 

Lieutenant J. II. Moore, "during the time he was at Eio, saw a great deal of him ; con- 
siders him in every way fit for the duties of a lieutenant. His opinion is founded upon a 
knowledge of him for sixteen years. 

Lieutenant Mitchell, acting master of the Bainbvidge, was with him two or three weeks at 

Rio. " As far as I know, he was personally and pro'.essionally (jualified for his position." 

Lieutenant Johmlon. — " Met him at Valparaiso, in command of the Massachusetts, and was 

brought frequently in contact with him. I know of no fact showing an insubordinate 

spirit, or that he w.as unfit for his position." 

Lieutenant Lra.-iher. — "Has met with Mr. Meade on several occasions. He was qualified 
for his poi-ition in every particular ; not in an eminent degree, but ordinarily so." 

Commodore Sailer. — "Have known him for 20 years. Met with him at Rio ; his ship was 



9 

in good condition when she arrived. His deportment was that of an officer and a gentle- 
man. Believed he was fit for the position he held. He was very industrious in preparing 
his ship for sea." 

Commaiider Berrien. — " Met with him at Eio ; saw nothing to indicate his moral, mental, 
and professional unfitness." 

I have thus presented the opinions of tlie officers who have served 
with me, and also the opinions of those who met with me while on. 
duty. I submit the following lists to the consideration of the court: 

A list of those officers wJio have served with me from 1826 to 1855, in- 
clusive, loho testify to my fitness, professionally. 

1 Captain Cunningham. 10. Lieutenant Stanley. 

2. Lieutenant Chandler. 11. Captain Boutwell. 

3. Lieutenant Maury. 12. Lieutenant Le Roy. 

4. Captain Newell. 13. Lieutenant Wainwright. 

5. Commodore McCauley. 14. C. E. Gray, late passed midshipman. 

6. Captain Mercer. 15. Lieutenant North. 

7. Lieutenant Johnston. 16. A. D. Harrell, late lieutenant. 

8. Commander Chatard. 17. Lieutenant Frailey. 

9. Commodore Newton. 18. Lieutenant Crossan. 

Officers ivho have met -with me on duty, and testify as io myprofessional 

fitness. 

1. Surgeon Williamson. 7. Lieutenant Moore. 

2. Naval Constructor Hartt. 8. Lieutenant Mitchell. 

3. Naval Constiuctor Delano. 9. Lieutenant Johnston. 

4. Captain Lynch. 10. Lieutenant Brasher. 

5. Commander Sterrett. " 11. Commodore Salter. 

6. Commander Ridgely. 12. Commander Berrien. 

The only witnesses not included by these lists, and who have testi- 
fied as to my professional fitness, are : 

Comvxodore John II. Aulick, who says that while serving under him in the Potomac "as 
deck officer, I did not always meet with his approbation." 

Lieutenant Edward A. Barnet, who testifies he considered me "morally and professionally 
unfit ;" and of 

Captain Franldin Buchanan, a member of the late naval board, who concurs in the latter 
opinion. 

It will thus be seen that while eighteen officers who have served 
with me, and twelve others who have met with me on dut}', in all 
thirty, concur in the opinion of r{\j professional fitness ; but two wit- 
nesses express an opposite opinion. And who are these witnesses? 
One is a lieutenant suspended by me for improper conduct, and the 
other a member of the late naval hoard, whose judgment is now to be 
sustained or overruled. 

While Lieutenant Barnet expresses his opinion of m.j professional 
unfitness, with all the hostility which has marked his proceedings 
against me, he states no fact and specifies no circumstance to shoio that 
unfitness . 

The opinion of experts are admitted in courts of justice as an 
exception to the rule that mere opinion cannot be given in evidence. 
The exception is founded in necessity. The exception is, that judges 
in courts of law cannot be supposed to be versed in all other sciences 
or professions, and they therefore, when occasion requires it, take the 
opinion of experts. As to the nature of a wound, the opinion of a 
surgeon ; in a case of collision at sea, the opinion of a seaman ; 
whether a building was well or ill constructed, the opinion of a me- 
chanic, &c. But a court of law would not receive the opinion of a 



10 

witness as to a question of law, witlioiit it may be in an exceptional 
case_, when the law of a foreign country is bronglit in question. The 
reason of this is, that the necessity which forms the basis of the ex- 
ception to the general rule of evidence does not exist. Apply this 
reasoning to the case at hand. This court is composed of gentlemen 
selected i'or their high professional skill as officers of the navy. They 
are to try the question of fitness in reference to an officer who has 
served in various positions, both as a subordinate and commatider, for 
a quarter of a century. If the facts are sta'ted by the witnesses, then 
judges do not require to resort to the opinions of experts — for they 
are themselves experts^ and the law has made it their duty to form 
the proper opinion upon the facts stated. Therefore, tlie necessity 
which gives rise to the exception to the rule of evidence does not 
exist in this case. The reason ceasing, the rule itself ceases. 

The coui twill not fail to remark that, while Lieutenant Ed. A.. 
Barnet omits to mention a single circumstance to show my want of 
professional skill, when questioned as to the incident of the 
loss of the masts — the only time the ship was in danger — he says : 
"Mr. Meade on that occasion conducted himself very ivell indeed, and 
very coolly." In this connexion, also, it may be well to remark, that 
he attributed the loss of the masts to the stowage of the vessel and the 
mode of rigging her, which were the ver'y causes of objection made by 
me at the time I was superintending her repairs at Norfolk, and cer- 
tainly show no want of professional knowledge on my part. I only 
add to this, if I had exhibited any want of skill while in the command 
of the Massachusetts, this gentleman, who, in his anxiety to injure me, 
has invaded the sanctity of my 'private and even my family relations 
for cause of attack, would have included it as the deadliest means of my 
destruction. That such a charge was not made, is, under the circum- 
stances, the strongest proof i\\ait there was nothing, in truth, to justify 
it. 

In reference to the opinion of Captain Franklin Buchanan, a tnem- 
her of the late naval hoard, it will be remembered tliat he gives but 
one instance of want of skill, to wit : that in the manoeuvre of "tack- 
ing ship" in a light wind I got her in irons and was unable to relieve 
her from the difficulty. No time, place, or circumstances are given by 
the witness, and the whole matter rests on his uncorroborated state- 
ment. The opinion of the witness is given ; but your opinion, which 
is to be my judgment, cannot be formed as to the true merits of tlie 
case, because the circumstances which attended the transaction are 
withheld from you. 

3. Facts showing me to be unfit under either of the heads men- 
tioned in the act. 

I come now to the third, most important, and last division of the 
evidence — the facts of the case. Captain Franklin Buchanan mentions 
two I'acts — the one afll'cting my professional, the otlier my moral fit- 
ness. The one is the circumstance already referred to in not being 
able to get the ship out of irons in a light wind, and the other that I 
was once intoxicated. 

In considering these two facts, I desire, by way of preface, to say, 
that when I reported to Captain Buchanan for duty, which was in his 
cabin aboard the ship, and presented to him my orders, he imme- 



11 

diately inquired, in ca most ofensive manner, whether I had applied 
for Ids ship, saying that it was a matter o{ regret to Jiim, and he might 
also add to the qlficers of the ship, and that his ship was no place for 
me. When Captain Buchanan was interrogated hefore this court as 
to my interview with him, he replied, "I don't recollect having said 
so, hut I think it very prohable I did." Captain Buchanan says he 
thinks such conduct an act of Idndness. I do not know how others 
may regard it, hut for myij^elf I keenly felt it as an insult and an in- 
dignity. If this he kindness, I should pray to be relieved from his 
enmity. 

I have already stated that Captain Buchanan' s statement of the 
fact referred to is uncorroborated. I will now show that it is contra- 
dicted by all the evidence in the record. 

1st. It is contradicted by Lieutenant Wainwright, an officer of the 
ship. Such a case of gross ignorance of official duty must have made 
a deep impression upon the minds of the officers on board. Captain 
Buchanan himself says, my "ignorance was so apparent it attracted 
the attention of the officers and crew." Lieutenant Wainwright was 
one of the officers thus referred to ; and yet, when examined as to my 
fitness, with his evidence directly referrable to my service aboard this 
Yerj ship, he says, emphatically, " I know nothing against the dis- 
charge of his duties property as an officer." 

2d. It is contradicted by Mr. Gray, during that period a midship- 
man and master's mate of my watch on board of the ship, wlio says : 
"In the discharge of his duty as lieutenant and deck officer he mani- 
fested a knowledge of his profession. His manner of doing his duty 
was always proper, and never ions interfered ivith by his commanding 
officer." On being re-examined, he says : " I do not recollect that he 
attempted to tack the ship, and got her into irons^ and could not get 
her out. If such an occurrence had taken place, I must have knoivn 
it." 

3d. It is contradicted by the log-book, which is entirely silent as to 
any such transaction, (copy of the log herewith filed.) 

4th. It is contradicted by the evidence of my long service prior to 
the incident, and by the professional fitness which the witnesses con- 
cur in testifying to. 

5. And lastly, it is contradicted by Captain Buchanan himself. In 
his evidence he stated " that he certainly entrusted him (me) in charge 
of the deck, after he (I) failed to put the ship about." After, as he 
states, I had exhibited ttjis inefficiency so gross that he would not per- 
mit me to bring the ship to anchor, he allowed me to take charge of 
the ship in my regular tour of duty. If the ship had been lost while 
thus under m?/ charge, how could Captain Franklin Buchanan have 
answered it to liiniself or the country, for ihi^ gross dercliciion of duty? 
It hoing proved \\\)0\\ him that he knew -of my total inefficiency, how 
could he have avoided the jiist condemnation of a court-martial ? There 
would seem to be but one escape from this dilemma, and that is, that 
Captain Buchanan did not then believe in the inefficiency to which he 
noiv testifies, or that he has permitted his prejudices to color a simple 
and ordinary occurrence and magnify it into one of great importance. 

But that the court cannot implicitly rely upon the accuracy of Cap- 
tain Buchanan's memory, will appear from the log-book, to which I 



12 

again refer. The only fact stated by him, as to which we can test his 
accuracy is, that "he called upon acting master Barney, (who he 
says was my relief) and ordered him to take charge," &c. The log- 
book shows that Mr. Barney neve^^ ivas my relief. 

Again : the log-book ehows that I did anchor the ship in Hampton 
Roads, and that when she was subsequently anchored, in the morning 
watch, I was not on duty, having kept the previous mid-watch. If 
Captain Franklin Buchanan would not entrust me to anchor the ship, 
how came I to discharge that duty in Hampton Roads ? There is no 
pretence that I violated any order in doing so, and there was no more 
difficulty in performing this act the second, than there was the first 
time. I have thus conclusively shown that the evidence of the offi- 
cers and all the facts of the case, are in direct conflict with Captain 
Franklin Buchanan's statement in this particular. 

The other fact mentioned by him touching my moral fitness, is, that 
he saw me on one occasion under the influence of liquor — that I was 
intoxicated ; thinks it was at Galveston. As it was all-important to 
me to fix with certainty the time, place, and persons present, the wit- 
ness was interrogated as to these particulars. His replies are, that he 
does not recollect who was present ; that he may be mistaken as to 
dates and places ; but that the fact was fresh in his memory. He was 
asked again if the transaction had not occurred at General Campbell's, 
in Havana ; his reply is, "I don't think it was at General Camp- 
bell's ;" I simply know the fact that he was once intoxicated while 
under my command, and my having spoken to him about it." 

As I am to be tried by this court on the fact, it is evident that I 
have no means of making a perfect defence against such testimony as 
this. Neither time, nor place, nor persons present, can be given by 
the witness. He thinks it was at Galveston, but will not deny that 
it was at the Plavana. All that he remembers with certainty is, that 
he saw me somewhere, and at some time, while under his command_, 
intoxicated. How am I to disprove this allegation? Am I to be 
bound hand and foot and delivered up to the " kindness" of Captain 
Buchanan, or am I to have a trial according to the laws and regula- 
tions which govern courts of inquiry? If the latter, I demand that 
when the witness charges me with a fact, which taints my moral 
character, he shall aflbrd me the means by giving with certainty the 
time, place, &c., by Avhich, if the charge be untrue, I may prove it 
to be so. 

Under this condition of things, all I can do is to assert, in the most 
solemn manner, that during my sei'vicc under Captain Buchanan I was 
never intoxicated nor unduly excited by spirituous liquors. The occasion 
referred to by Captain Buchanan, in fact, occurred while we were at 
Havana. He thai'O spoke to me on the subject, and it led to my writing 
letters, under date of 26th July, 1844, to General Campbell, then 
consul, and also to Dr. Barton. General Campbell's letter I have 
mislaid; but Dr. Barton's reply, together with my letter to General 
Campbell, I have filed herewith. They show, beyond a doubt, that 
this is the transaction referred to by Captain Buchanan, and they also 
show that he was entirely mistaken as to the cause of the excitement 
which he witnessed. I am aware that tlicse letters are not strictly 
in evidence ; but the papers from their dates, as well as from their 



is 

intrinsic character, afford abundant proof of their verity. Called upon 
without any previous notification of this charge, I may consider my- 
self fortunate, indeed, in having even such means of defence as I am 
now able to produce, If I am to be answered that Captain Buchanan's 
statement of the isolated fact is to be taken as proof of that fact, with- 
out time or place or circumstance given, then I am already judged as 
to the fact ; and what was intended to be a trial becomes a mere 
mockery. 

I come now to the allegations of Lieutenant Barnet. This witness 
testifies that prior to our arrival at Rio, 1 had always been courteous 
and affable to him ; but after arrival there, my manner to him 
changed. His allegations may be thus stated : 

1. That I had difficulties with my officers growing out of my inter- 
ference with their duties. 

2. That I was harsh to my officers, and sought popularity with the 
men at their expense. 

3. That I habitually spoke to him in an offensive manner. 

4. That I refused to let him go on shore, though the surgeon said 
he required exercise. 

5. That on one occasion, when he knocked down a drunken sailor 
and put a gag in his mouth, I accused him of tyranny before the men. 

6. That on another occasion, on my return to the ship, I accused 
him publicly as being the cause of the loss of my coxswain. 

7. That at a certain time I had directed the yeoman not to let him 
have the stores. 

8. That I had accused a passed midshipman of feloniously stealing 
an order from my cabin. 

9. That while on shore at Rio, I was in the habit of abusing and 
speaking of him publicly in a disrespectful manner. 

The witness states my change of manner to him after our 
arrival at Rio. He does not state the cause of that change, but it 
may be found in the fact that he had given currency to the existence 
of an order which had been written in my order-book but never pro- 
mulgated as an order, I had informed Mr. Barnet of it confidentially ; 
he imparted it to Passed Midshipman A. A. Semmes, as he says, in 
strict confidence, who told it to the other officers. It is true Mr. Bar- 
net, in his evidence, denies that he received the communication from 
me in confidence ; but the very nature of the communication shows it 
was confidential ; and when, subsequently, Mr. Semmes gave further 
currency to the fact, in violation of his pledge of secrecy, he may have 
well expressed to me his deep regret, to which he testifies, for the 
course of events, and the consequences likely to ensue therefrom. 

Taking all the allegations of Mr. Barnet to be true, and yet I find 
nothing in them which affects the question of my professional skill, 
nor do they appear in any manner to impeach my moral character; I 
can make no reply to the mere generalities of harshness or imperious- 
ness of manner, for they are not tangible. When asked to specify 
what he meant with more particularity, he states that on one occasion, 
while in the discharge of his duty, he heard me ask in an imperious 
manner, "who is officer of the deck? Where is Mr. Semmes?" 
That he '^ was then addressed in the same offensive manner, saying 
there was a boat alongside, and why did not he attend to it;" to which 



14 

he replied that he " was of more importance where he was." When 
further cross-examined, he says, " his language was not so offensive ; 
it was his manner and io7ie." 

When asked to specily hy what means I sought popuhirity with 
my men, he only says that the purser liad complained to him of the 
frequency with which extra grog had been served out. Now, the 
account of the purser will show that from the 3d May to 18th No- 
vember, 1854, ten days longer than Mr. Barnet was on board, there 
was used 323-2 gallons, to a crew of about 112 persons. Mr. Barnet 
says he does not know at whose request this was done, but does not 
deny that the request was made: But we need not linger over such 
trifles. The log-book will show every occasion wlien extra grog was 
allowed, and the court can judge for itself. 

Lieutenant Barnet complains of my refusal to permit him to go on 
shore. By my letter of October 27, 1854, to him, it will be seen that he 
had permission to go on shore from the 18th to the 24th of that month. 
On the 31st of October, the surgeon addressed me a private note, in 
which he says that Mr. Barnet will require occasional exercise on 
shore. This was declined by me. Three days afterwards, to wit, on 
3d November, the surgeon addressed me an official note^ in which the 
case of necessity was put in a stronger light, which note was imme- 
diately approved. All these letters are on file in evidence. 

This Avitness further complains that the yeoman had stated I had 
ordered him not to give out any stores to him. It will be seen from 
the letters which have been offered in evidence, that the order, such 
as it was, was issued on the 17th October, when I had determined to 
suspend Mr. B., though the letter informing him of his suspension 
was not written until the next day. 

He charges that I accused a passed midshipman, on the evidence of 
my negro servant, with having secretly entered my private apartment 
and feloniously abstracting from my order-book an order not yet pro- 
mulgated. He says in his evidence that he had a letter from me to 
this effect. He was then shown a copy of the letter dated 8th Sep- 
tember, 1834, which he recognizes as a true copy. The court, by re- 
ferring to that letter, will see that the witness is wholly unsustained 
in his assertion, as it makes no charge against an officer whatever. 

Pie accuses me of publicly abusing him while on shore at Rio. 
This is not stated as of liis own knowledge, but from information 
derived from others. The only witness produced is Henry Esling, 
who states that he heard me speak of Mr. Barnet in an improper man- 
ner. When asked to specify the impropriety of language, he says he 
heard me say I would carry him round to San Francisco off duty ; 
'' and that he also heard me say I could get along Avith my men 
when none of the other officers could." This is all the evidence on 
the point. The witness reterred to other letters written by two or 
three persons at Rio, which he confessed had been manipulated by 
him, though he denies having done more than merely correcting the 
style, &c. One of the letter-writers is shown by a witness to be a 
drunken and worthless character. But I need make no further com- 
ment upon them, for they are not evidence, and cannot legally form 
any portion of the record in the case. The same observation applies 
to the whole of the report which was admitted in evidence, not as 



15 

proof of any of the facts contained in it, but only to show what was 
the nature of the report, with the view of sustaining Mr, Barnet's 
conversation held wilh Senator Mallory. These are the only allega- 
tions I deem it necessary to refer to. It will be seen that Mr. Barnet 
is not only contradicted on the allegation of charging a midshipman 
with feloniously abstracting an order from my cabin, but he is also 
directly contradicted by Lieutenant Nicholson, who asserts positively 
that he heard him say on the poop-deck of the Germantown, " that 
he was the executive officer of the Massachusetts, and if she was to be 
repaired he would cut and slash her tore and aft, so that it would cost 
as much to repair her as to lit out a new ship." Mr. Barnet, when 
examined as to this declaration, positively denied that he had ever 
made such a statement. 

Again: Mr. Barnet stated as a cause of charge against me, that I 
had abruptly declined the polite offer of the Brazilian authorities to 
have the Massachusetts refitted at the government yard. He did not 
say that he had heard this, but states it roundly as of his own know- 
ledge. After Captain Lynch had given his testimony on the present 
investigation, he comes forward and says that he was mistaken as to 
this fact. 

I had expected by the evidence of Senator Mallory, who was sub- 
poenaed in this matter, to show a still more gross case of misrepresen- 
tation ; but as the witness has been unable to attend, it is improper to 
make any comment upon that head. 

It v/ill be for the court to judge how all these allegations are mate- 
rial, and how ihr they could rely upon the testimony of such a witness. 

An account from the department has been j^i'oduced, noio settled, 
but which shows that I had been in advance of my pay upwards of five 
hundred dollars. The account speaks for itself. My expenses during 
the cruise had been greatly enhanced by my entertaining at Rio the 
French Admiral; at Valparaiso, General Millan; and at Callao, the 
President General Castilla. This advance I expected, and I had the 
right to expect, would be extinguished by my pay during the cruise. 
In this just expectation I was disappointed, having been ordered 
home on the 30th day of July, 1855, after a service of fifteen months. 
On reaching home I learned I had been dropped by the late naval 
board. I admit that while in this condition I was not as prompt 
in balancing my account as I might have been. I had a claim 
against the government then pending before Congress for expen- 
ses in the Pacific, in consequence of the loss of the Edith. This 
claim had been recommended by the department, and had several 
time passed the Senate, and I looked to this, somewhat, as the means 
of liquidation. This may be regarded as an irregularity, as a cause 
of blame, but no ingenuity can magnify it into anything more. 

I have now gone through the whole evidence of the case. I have 
endeavored to deal with it in the utmost fairness and frankness. It 
is for you, gentlemen, to say how far this evidence shows that my 
mental, moral, professional, and physical unfitness is of such a cha- 
racter-as to have justified my being dropped from the service of my 
country. The ordeal to which I have been subjected has been a severe 
one. I feel, however, that the record shows no fact which would 
lessen an honorable man in his owa estimation. In your ha ndst,.! > 



16 

leave an issue •which is dearer to me than life ; and I do so in the full 
confidence that if with unbiased minds you v;ill maturely weigh and 
examine the evidence and the commentaries contained in this defence, 
I shall have a speedv and safe deliverance. 

Most respectfully, R. W. MEADE. 



U. S. Ship Vincennes, ' *■ 

Havana, July 26, ISn. 

My Dear Sir : You will dcmbtless recollect that, on the occasion of the visit of the 
" Vincennes," ComiKixnder Buchanan, at Havana, the 4th May last, I had the plt\asnre to 
make ycxir acquaintance, and dined, together with my friend Lieutenant Ilooe, in com- 
pany with you and Dr. Barton. After dinner, and while we were still seated at the table, 
conversing with you and the other gentlemen present. Commander Buchanan entered the 
room and joined our party. Very soon afterwards I withdraw, and repaired on board the 
Vincennes, for purposes of duty. I had taken wine with you and Dr. Barton, by your 
invitations, having througliout the day tasted nothing until we met at dinner. Now, 
sir. Commander Buchanan tells me on the occasion referred to that "I was not dnmk, 
exactly, but very much excited, intoxicated." My object is to bespeak from you a state- 
ment, in writing, at your earliest pleasure, as our stay is uncertain here, whether you 
"observed anything in my tone and deportment indicating such excitement." I had just 
been one month xmder Conmander Buchanan's command, and had never sailed with or 
known him before, but by repute, on joining his ship ; so that, in forming such judgment, 
he had no previous personal knowledge of me to go upon. It is my earnest desire to go 
before the department to refute this unjust and mistaken accusation, which I feel confident 
exists only in Commander Buchanan's imagination, and not in any reality, and will, I 
trust plead a sufficient apology for troubling you witli this communication. It may not 
be improper to add, that Lieutenant Hooe was equally surprised with myself on learning 
that Commander Buchanan considered me " very much excited " whilst in your company, 
on the occasion above mentioned, and positively states that such was not the fact. I shall 
address Dr. Barton a letter of similar purport to this. 

I regret, most deeply, to find myself compelled to thus appear before you ; but the repu- 
tation ol an officer (generally all that he possesses) must at all tim.es be carefully__guarded, 
and the duty is a sacred one where that reputation has been unjustly assailed. 
I am, sir, very respectfully, 

R. W. MEADE, Lieut. U. S. Navy. 

Gen. C.MiiPBELL, U. S consul, Havana. 

I addressed a similar letter to Dr. Barton, and received from him 
the following reply. The answer of Gen, Campbell, in which he 
denied that 1 was in the situation charged by Commander Buchanan, 
has been mislaid. 

Havan.a., July 26, 1844. 

Dear Sir : I have an unusually distinct recollection of the occasion referred to in }'our 
note of yesterday, from some statements made by you of circumstances in which I felt a 
peculiar interc.-t; and I must acknowledge that I felt as much suiprisu at the accusation 
of your commander as you are at the imputation implied in his remark, that "you were 
not drunk exactly, but very much excited;" and, in answer to your request if I had 
*' observed anything in your tone and deportment indicating such excitement," I must 
very candidly confess that I saw nothing that induced me to believe that you were under 
the influence of artificial excitement, nor would the length of our acquaintance justify me 
in supposing there was the least departure from your ordinary manner. The incidents 
related being, in part, personal adventures, relating to your family and yourself, were 
well calculated to elicit excitement of manner which your commander may Lave at- 
tributed to another source ; but I have no recollection of their transcending, in the 
slightest degree, the frank manner of the sailor, or the polished tone of the gentleman. 
I remain, very respectfully, . 

E. H. BARTON. 

Lieut. EicnAEi) W. Meade, 

United States Ship Vincennes. 

«^bf^ ii^gi*^p^ ^jiiir'm ^<- 



